Should You Pay Twice as Much for a Mac?

If they actually used desktop processors, they'd be able to compete. Instead, they're stuck on this path of all-in-one desktops using overpriced mobile technology. They're behind. They won't see quad-core processors and more than 4GB of RAM in consumer desktops until Intel releases the respective CPU's and chipsets for notebook systems. Similarly, they won't have fast TB hard drives until they're available for notebooks and the price comes down to a respectable level. The cheapest quad-core Mac you can buy is a Mac Pro, which is horribly overpriced. Even getting RAID with it is a joke ($800!!!). Here's a tip: off-the-shelf Intel-made motherboard DG45ID supports 7.1 analog audio with SPDIF, HDMI, DVI, 6 USB ports right on the board, 1394 (that's "Firewire" for you Mackies), eSATA on-board, 5 SATA 3Gbps connectors, Quad-Core support, PCI-e x16, Intel Matrix RAID (BIOS-based software RAID - which is all you need for RAID 0 or 1), etc. etc.....all for ~$120. Why they can't build a simple desktop computer with something like that is just ludicrous.

This has pretty much always been true when comparing Apple's low-end offering to Dell's and HP's low-end boxes. If you match feature for feature it's closer, but let's ignore that now and concentrate on the ASP "gap".

Despite the gap, it seems the last couple of years -- quarter after quarter -- Apple breaks its record for Macs sold. Has Apple done this because nobody knows about these "bargain" PCs, or because they didn't exist? Of course not.

There have always been people willing to pay for the Mac experience, and ignore those who would tell them something else is "just as good". What you're seeing is an increase in the number of people who believe a Mac is worth it. Some of us have felt that if more people would really try a Mac they'd feel the same way and, clearly, it's happening.

Whether this is because Apple is supposedly "cool", or there's an iPod "halo effect", or the Apple Stores, or Apple's ads, or Microsoft stumbling with Vista, or any other reason you care to name, a greater number of people are seeking out Macs specifically (not just "a PC") and know the difference.

Will this number of people ever exceed those who buy primarily on price? No. But those are people Apple can leave to others. Apple, as always. will have to keep moving forward. But they will not be driven down to razor margins like the Dells and HPs of the world. It would make zero sense for them to go there.

OS X is worth the $700 difference, easy. As near as I can tell, unscientifically, from talking to my PC-using friends, the 2 days/month they spend dealing with Windows BS compared to the two hours I spend each month dealing with OS X BS (yes, there's some) immediately pays for the difference, within the first month (if my time is worth $50/hour).

So maybe you only spend one day a month on windows BS. Then it pays for itself in two months. Either way, a Mac is a great deal.

Am I the only who gets reminded of McCain by these articles? He doesn't have much good to say about himself, so he attacks Obama. The Windows folks don't have much good to say about their machines, so they bad-mouth Apple. Why aren't they happier about the fact that their platform of choice is so cheap?

Chris Jones wrote: "The Windows folks don't have much good to say about their machines, so they bad-mouth Apple."

Yes, yes, there was just SO much bias for a post written on a MacBook Air running Leopard. So, what? Because you don't like the contents there HAS to be Windows bias?

Joe

Anyone who argues "average" sale prices in their reasoning rather than actually comparing machines with matching specs is a clueless prat. It's like arguing that the average sale at one new car dealership is outrageously more expensive than the average sale price of all other wheeled vehicles combined (a figure which includes sales of bicycles, tricycles and wheelbarrows).

From the rumors that I have heard, Microsoft is subsidizing the cost of the "low cost" laptops to be able to push out more copies of Vista. Hmm....

"Anyone who argues "average" sale prices in their reasoning rather than actually comparing machines with matching specs is a clueless prat."

You obviously have one of those short attention spans I've been reading about: Joe does, indeed, look at equivalent specced machines above (an Inspiron 518 and an iMac).

I'm not surprised by this, because Apple's pricing is always cyclical. It introduces a new, upgraded model which evens things out, usually to the point where people are paying a premium of 10% or so over equivalently-specced Windows machines.

However, it then maintains those specs until the next product rev, rather than continually incrementally upgrading them, as, say, Dell does. That means that over the lifetime of a product, the price differential increases until the point where Apple's machines are really overpriced for what you get - which is where we are now.

Maczealots would pay any price for their Kool-Aid and Jobs knows it.

OK, put aside Apple products for the moment. I just found this at Nextag.

HP Compaq RM252UA 17.0" Notebook
2.2 GHz - Centrino - 2.0 GB RAM - 120 GB Hard Drive - 17" Display - Windows Vista

Price: $2,799.00 at Amazon.com
$2,629.99 at MacMall.com

So if the $700 laptops are so great why would anyone ever buy an HP laptop for this much?

?????

Statistics are the easiest way to lie.

Apple doesn't play in the cheap as dirt market, get over it. If you don't want it, don't buy it. Apple users are quite happy being an elite and pain free minority. If you poor rabble came in and dirtied up our platform, we'd have to deal with all the diseases you bring with you, like Slammer, Blaster, etc...

By your cheap PC desktop or laptop and run whatever unpatched hacker copy of windows you like! Hope you enjoy your virus ridden spotbot, I have a nice built-in the MacOS spam filter and I can run any of those exe files pretending to be a jpg of Paris Hilton's missing undergarments.

Life is good here.

I pity the fool who buys the Apple product. I have always been a big fan of Windows and Dell computers.

Joe:

You walked right into Chris Jones' trap. He tried to get a rise out of you and got exactly that. Extremists in any "religion" whether it be Apple vs. Windows or Republicans vs. Democrats simply don't think rationally.

Fanboys should be ignored unless they have something intelligent to say.

Personally, I want a spade to be called a spade and you hit the nail on the head: Apple's HW is overpriced.

Case in point, I purchased a MacBook earlier this month with 1GB RAM. Quickly discovered this was inadequate and went to Apple's website. They wanted $400 for 4GB!!! I went to Amazon and some Crucial memory for Macs (4GB as well) was in my hands for $100 + $3 shipping.

Apple will never get deep penetration into either the consumer or enterprise markets until they can compete with the big 2 on price. Hopefully they figure this out soon enough.

@Ian Betteridge

"Joe does, indeed, look at equivalent specced machines above (an Inspiron 518 and an iMac)"

Surely a better comparison would be Apple's iMac and Dell's "iMac", the 'XPS One'? Which costs $1300.00 BTW.

For better or worse Apple just doesn't make a midrange tower desktop. Do you really think it is fare to compare a product from one company with a non-existent product from another?

MonkeyT, he did compare specs. Reread the article.

@Jim Magnus

I can understand why you have a website about headaches! :D

The present crop of Macs are getting a little past ripe - I have a 2 year old MacBook Pro, and the design hasn't changed substantially since almost a year before I bought it. This explains some of the hardware dis-parity.

There's also a (slightly fanboi) argument that Macs deliver an adequate "experience" with 2GB of RAM, less graphics memory, etc. while it doesn't matter what engine you've got driving Vista, it's still an ungainly pig - I love how my Vista explorer periodically restarts itself, a far cry improvement over how the entire system used to just lock up when Explorer crashed. In fairness, my MacBook also crashes, but the frequency is much less than what I experience with Dells in Vista or XP (and I use OSX much more.)

Macs (other than the MacPro) are expensive for the hardware you get, and arguably cheap for the software you get. If you value the software, and you're not out to buy the cheapest thing that will get you by, then there is a value argument for Macs. On the other hand, if you somehow need every possible GB of RAM and hard drive and GPU performance, you'll never beat a hand built Windows or Linux PC (unless you factor in the cost of your time to select components, do the assembly, recover from the missteps, etc.)

I'd lose all faith in the open market economy if a single source vendor didn't have higher prices than the commodity exchange.

I just wish Apple was honest with their pricing policy.

Their computer hardware "should" be sold for approx. the same price as PCs. After all they use exactly the same components under the hood these days but for some tweaking - we're not comparing a Ferrari to a Ford here) and their OS makes up the difference in selling price.

Now it's probably a darn good OS but that's a heck of a price considering over 90% of the worlds computers are productive enough to run the net, business....etc etc

I think if the PC buyer added in the bluetooth, the Wi-fi, and the camera (all things that many users actually want for todays computing applications and uses), and the value of the OSX, which is by far a easier, better, more stable experience, you would find the mac to be an equal if not superior value. Additionally, you can run Windows Vista bloatware, and any other OS you want on the mac.

Its the beginning of this game, but you are seeing the absolute effects of higher quality product making a real difference to consumers who cannot be fooled by the joke they have been getting played on the last several years.

Apple will continue to deliver better product, at higher margins, and win market share.

You will all eventually be using an Apple product. Its just better.

A female is a female, right? Why compete for a pretty one when a homely one's readily available? And there's really little difference between a healthy one and one racked with Herpes, right?

Some would select to have one hundred $1.00 hookers rather than one $100.00 hooker. Glad you're not my friend.

This article is also deficient because it does not analyze the effect of resale. You can buy a iMac for $1400 and sell it for $700 three years later. Buy a PC for $700 and it's worth maybe $200 three years later.

You do get those extras with Apple(camera, wifi, bluetooth) but on older (read almost out of date) hardware specs.

I still have XP but run Ubuntu almost exclusively on my $650 quad.

The OS is linux/unix based and free, stable, with no virus's to speak of.

ALL programs and utilities are free, no more reboots, not more defrags....

Oh yeah....did I mention that its Free?

It's about product design and software.

A Hyundai costs a lot less than a BMW for the same horsepower, same number of wheels, same passenger capacity, same color choices, same number of steering wheels, similar gas mileage, similar warranty, etc, etc. So why don't all BMW owners defect to Hyundai.

It's exactly the same with Mac vs. Windows PC

Should you pay twice as much for a Mercedes?

This analysis is like comparing the average selling prices between Mercedes and Ford cars. You're comparing two categories: luxury and commodity. There's no surprise that the luxury category consistently costs more and has higher margins. It takes a discerning (and wealthy) person to be able to appreciate the subtle differences in fit, finish, and quality of service and value them enough to pay a premium for them. We could have this same conversation about the "value" actually derived from a luxury automobile.

And incidentally, the best commodity computer in my mind runs Ubuntu Linux :)

To "John" who asked who would buy the 2800 dollars Windows PC with the 700 dollar machines? Very few people, but that doesn't make that 2800 dollar machine very useful to the retailer in selling many other machines. Most people don't realized how a highly expensive (read: overpriced) alternative increases sales for the lower priced alternatives. Restaurants, for example, trying to push a particular high-priced item will add an even more high priced item to their menu..one that they don't even expect to sell, to get people to buy that next highest priced item. Best Buy sets up their TVs in a specific way to get you to buy the TV they want you to buy.

And for some of the others, your uninformed bias against Vista is so transparent.Quit being fan boys and start being critical consumers. I have used OS X, I have used Vista, I have used XP. Vista and OS X are far more alike than they are different.

"I think if the PC buyer added in the bluetooth, the Wi-fi, and the camera (all things that many users actually want for todays computing applications and uses)..."

Ummm why would you add them? Go into your local Best Buy just for having a convenient sample of notebooks.... WiFI is in every last one of them, most have a camera, and Bluetooth is in half of them if not more.

When you pick a generic PC on a cheaper price, you'll be stuck with Windows and Linux software, which is a price higher than many of us can stomach.

I agree with the comparison between car brands. There is a difference between the products that goes deeper than the technical specs. I had few $700 HP laptops that ended up with broken power connectors. You don't see things like that with a Mac.

I like this comment:

"This article is also deficient because it does not analyze the effect of resale. You can buy a iMac for $1400 and sell it for $700 three years later. Buy a PC for $700 and it's worth maybe $200 three years later."

I see, so three years later you have lost 700 dollars on the Mac and 500 dollars on the PC. Of course, that should drive you to buy the Mac... oh wait...so after 3 years you have had 700 dollars (from the initial savings) sitting in the bank earning interest (even a pitiful 2 or 3 percent) and your net loss is 200 dollars less than buying the Mac. So you can buy a brand new PC that blows away ANYTHING on the market today for 700 future dollars while you sit with your mac waiting with your mac for 3 more years to recoup your expenditures. I see.

The only reason to buy a Mac is because they have the ability to run BOTH OSes, but apparently, here, that is not a feature because so many of you hate Vista so much that you would never use it. For me it would be a reason to consider a Mac... after the new models come out.

For many of us, the only thing we really need is a browser and, maybe, a media player. So why pay the extra money?

Another "dear John" message:

Perhaps the product you posted about isn't really for sale...

Do you think anyone will be buying this 1.15 million dollar doozy from Amazon?

http://www.amazon.com/HP-Compaq-Business-Desktop-dc7600/dp/B000PK3CB4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=pc&qid=1218031672&sr=1-1

@davesmall: Your Hyundai vs BMW argument fails because the hardware of a mac is not a higher quality than the hardware for a PC. Mac's are status symbols, and nothing more. Pay extra for it like you would a BMW, or buy the Honda/Toyota and get the same performance and same or higher quality.

It's really fairly simple, if you were to buy a PC for the same price as you buy a Mac you will not have the issues of running software as on a budget $500 pc. With PCs, for the price of a Mac you can buy the PC and the software too.

With a Mac I am more productive, so the price difference disappears in a few months.

Tom's hardware did a reasonable summary. Macs are not more expensive. Apple just doesn't make cheap no profit trash...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/apple-mac-leopard-windows-vista,1985.html

Long and the short is that I would pay treble for the OSX experience versus the awfulness of Windows

Nobody seems to have mentioned support. Apple has better support services that most (all?) other manufacturers.

"...the Dell is easily upgraded. Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and Webcam are extra-cost options on the Dell."

I guess upgrading a Dell is free. Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and Webcam cost 1$ each.

Another factor to consider. By avoiding the budget buyer, Apple's will remain a more secure platform.

Malware will target those 'less knowledgeable', putting it politely, Windows users.

It is those same budget PC's that are distributing the billions of spam emails daily... costing everyone. What price budget?

@Jim Magnus:

Who the hell needs your pity?

That Yugo purchased in 1986 was a steal, and it got great mileage. Smart choice, wasn't it?

Consumers aren't stupid -- they learn from mistakes. Look at Apple's sales growth and it says they are doing something right. The fact that low-end Wintel machines are priced dirt cheap should surprise no one. You get what you pay for.

Ultimately, in the marketplace, it all comes down to perceived value. As long as people feel that Macs are worth the extra money, they'll pay for them. Otherwise, they'll opt for Windows or Linux. I'm sure the marketing folks at Apple have a handle on things.

For myself, I'm agnostic. There are things I like about my 2007 iMac, with OS X 10.4.11. There are things I like about my Dell, running Windows XP Professional. I haven't really looked at Vista yet, and am not in a hurry to upgrade.

When it comes time to replace the Dell, I'll do whatever makes sense then. Price will be only one of the factors I consider.

I'm with Rich, and I'll take it one step further: Windows destroys the value of any hardware it touches. The amount of time I've helped friends and family with their XP machines vs. their Mac machines is considerable.

I wonder if judging value by also comparing Ubuntu software would offer a new angle on the hardware we're judging. Because this article is considering the experience and maintenance of the total cost of the hardware, then its interface needs to be fairly judged as well.

I have a problem with windows, it sucks way more so then Mac, 2 years at a national magazine as webmaster and onsite tech,with 2 windows machines (Publisher and bookkeepers ) and 25 Mac workstations,2 mac servers.Of 100s of computer issues only 2 came from Macs and were from the spilling of liquid on the keyboard not GUI or OS related.
the rest were on Windows.
Time is money and a CTO should be able to see the cost of maintaining windows is 3 to 5 times the cost of Mac or Linux in the long run maybe even more. Yes IT will scream against Mac or Unix as they dont want to learn something new or maybe lose their jobs and status. At the end of the day its how many widgets get made and at what cost not what OS or hardware a single system has.

Bob, you've hit the nail on the head. People who perceive the Apple value proposition will buy Macs. I am amused by all the idiots here who call Mac users "fanboys" or "zealots" or whatever other epithets they can come up with. It is extremely disingenuous to suggest that the tens of millions of Mac users around the world have all been duped by the Apple marketing machine. This kind of over-generalization is quite inane.

I own several Windows PCs and one iMac. I use WinXP, Vista, and OS X. I am largely OS-agnostic. However, I will hand it to Apple: Mac does have a compelling value proposition...

1) Gorgeous industrial design, second to none
2) Superb build quality (cf. Dell)
3) Wonderful ease of use and productivity
4) Top-notch support
5) Better security than Vista's

And that's above and beyond the "cool" factor.

I'm with Bob, I'm agnostic. My desktop is Windows and my laptop is Mac. Regardless of whether or not I have a Mac or PC, I'm still going to go and grab the software I use-- Firefox, Skype, etc. The immediate cost is a big factor-- take the iPhone that Apple themselves spun as 'low price' and yet it was shown that -over time-, wasn't cheaper. Didn't matter to consumers apparently.

The issue with comparisons between the two are such moving targets, because subjective things like status, class, perceived experience get mixed up with things like RAM, Storage, Feature sets (wifi/bluetooth/webcam included).

I'm nearing the next purchase cycle and I'm feeling 'consumer behavior' set in. Both systems have their annoyances, both do the same thing. But I find my personal experiences with Windows vs. Mac being similar to owning both a Chevy and Mercedes. I don't have problems with either of them even though they have their own unique irritations and hidden things that pop up down the road, the benefits of each are walking the line of function and form, two very odd bedfellows indeed.

The "stunning" part is not the price disparity, but the fact that Apple's market share is rapidly increasing despite it!

There's a message there for Microsoft and PC makers: a lot of people are so sick of dealing with Windows that they will gladly pay double, if necessary, in order to have a less stressful, more productive experience. (I'm talking average end-users, here, not high-end geeks who will keep their cheapo PCs humming along no matter what)

Having said that, I also agree with the previous poster about the Chevy vs. Mercedes analogy.

Part of that extra cost on the Mac destops is for the Xeon processors that most PC desktops don't use.

After a decade of Intel/Windows PC's and laptops, I'd had enough, bought the last Powerbook G4. I've never looked back, no issues, no problems, no viruses, thousands of applications and utilities, unix inside.... even MS Office. Everything just works, HW & SW, beautifully all the time, and I'm still using the original installation of OSX 10.4 (no slowdowns, no barfing, no crashes). Since I don't use Windows anymore, I have no need for a MacBook until this laptop is stolen or gets destroyed in a tornado.

Intel/windows = Buick
PowerPC/OSX = Porsche
Intel/OSX = Ferrari

Average cost to remove spyware/viruses from a PC. yes even Vista, is over $200 for normal user. These can result in lost data, identity theft, lost time, etc. One occurance makes up the difference in cost.

I am an ISP and I see this daily!

There's a piece of this equation you left out - the elusive "Value" quality. Do you think purchasers of Apple computers are blithely unaware that they could spend half the hard dollar cost to obtain a "computer"? I'd be surprised to discover that very many people wandered in to an Apple Store and just purchased a Mac on impulse. There are qualities that influence the purchase that go beyond the simple comparison of technical specs. The Value Proposition is about precisely that: VALUE.

Macintosh purchasers - as, for instance, BMW purchasers, or Viking range purchasers, or organic vegetable purchasers - CHOOSE to pay what YOU perceive to be a premium to obtain what YOU perceive to be an inferior product. But the Macintosh purchaser's Value Proposition says, I want a computer that does what I want it to do, with the least possible amount of maintenance and hassle, that's well-designed, and constructed for practical use that (easily) doubles the life of other alternatives. I want a computer whose maker essentially dictates to peripheral and software vendors PRECISELY how things will work, so that my use and enjoyment of my purchase will be unencumbered with things like hardware incompatibilities and conflicting .DLL installations. The time I will save, the use I will enjoy, are worth the amount of money I will now spend above and beyond what I might spend were I to go down to the Kwik-E-Mart and purchase a Windows PC.

Is that for everyone? Of course not. But for almost 9% of the computer buying public, it IS worth it - and that number appears to be increasing, slowly but steadily. Nobody's suggesting you shouldn't continue to enjoy surfing the razor-thin margin game with whatever Chinese startup is tossing chips and boards together this week - for Macintosh purchasers, that's just... irrelevant. I know, it's hard to take, but they don't care about you, or Windows, or saving $500 or $1,000 or $2,000. You can toss around whatever unsubstantiated claims you want regarding Apple's longterm viability (cf. the early 1990's to remind yourself how THAT story line has played out...), but you're talking Hyundais, and Maytag, and creamed corn in a can and Macintosh purchasers... aren't.

Still hoping that microsoft will make a linux based os.

The NPD Graph is misleading.
NPD uses creative math.
You see, Apple makes two types of desktop computers.
The Mac Pro is a desktop, the iMac is a desktop - with
a buildin screen.
Here's what they did: They have counted the iMac as a normal, generic tower desktop. (without screen)
They counted the Windows pc if it was the same as the iMac.
The low end iMac is very competitivly priced, and it looks gorgeous.
It's not even really low end, because OS X scales great.

Interestingly, these comments are the same type of craziness as you see on the BMW message boards, where it's not enough for someone to take pleasure in the fact that they have a more comfortable and more exciting car to drive, they have to go into all sorts of crazy contortions in rationalizing why their car is a better financial investment than a Prius, while paying 5x the price for the same brake pads. That's what makes you a fanboy, when you insist that my any possible metric (price, performance, reliability), that Apple is better. I own a Mac and a BMW, and I know these are luxuries which I prize. I use Vista regularly at work, if I couldn't afford a Mac, it wouldn't be the end of the world, just like if I had to drive a Toyota, I'd be ok too. I'm just happy that I can afford to enjoy something a little better. Enjoy your Mac, but don't be a nut.

Q. Should You Pay Twice as Much for a Mac?
A. No - you should pay the market price for a Mac

As to whether it's worth twice as much as a cheapo Windows PC, then that's up to you.
For me it most certainly is.
Being a Mac owner does not endow me or any other Mac user with anything other than a different value equation when making a purchase - that's all the difference there is. Same goes for iPods, iPhones or whatever. The value lies in what you place on it not the tastes or lack of, of the buyer. If you place so little value by what you spend your time doing, then go cheap

The Mac's worldwide market share has "skyrocketed" all the way to 3%, so the company is clearly on the right path. (grin)

"1) Gorgeous industrial design, second to none
2) Superb build quality (cf. Dell)
3) Wonderful ease of use and productivity
4) Top-notch support
5) Better security than Vista's

And that's above and beyond the "cool" factor."

Dell had top-notch support for years. In fact, they were the industry leader in support. Become big enough, and support will go down. It is simply the biggest expense. Once you dive into the low-end market, like Apple is apparently going to do, they will either not afford the cost of tech support as it is, or they will outsource it.

Dell has excellent design quality in comparably prices machines. Sony's Vaio has a very similar look to the Mac, and in fact, Sony developed the keyboard design used on the MacBook (which I hate, BTW)

Tell us about the better security Mac offers. Apple has done one thing that has allowed for an apparently more secure, more stable OS. They have no past success. No, really, MS has had to keep compatibility with older hardware and thus reliability can suffer. Buy a new machine with Vista x64 on it--rock solid. Apple has so limited the range of hardware, of course they can tailor their OS to a handful of configurations. Of course, what that means is you can't get your pick of the best quality that is out there. You get to use what Apple thinks you should have. For some of you, that is great, for others, not so much. You pay to have fewer options.

If you buy a computer for the "coolness factor" you deserve to pay extra. I suppose you pay 1500 each for the rims on your Escalade too.

"The low end iMac is very competitivly priced, and it looks gorgeous."

People, go get some art in your homes and stop using your computer's case as a means of enhancing your decor. I mean really, put your computer in a room that no one but you is going to see it. Who cares if the case is "pretty." Gosh if you bought a Mac, you should be able to print off some really pretty pictures to hang on the walls...I suppose you could do the same with a PC...and still have money for paper, ink, and frames.

"granted the Mac Mini starts at $599, but its sales volume is negligible"

Apple might want you to beleive this, but it's not true. The Mac mini outsells the iMac most days on Amazon. To me that says, most people want a Mac for under $1000.

Oh, the car analogies are cracking me up. The hardware in a BMW is leaps and bounds higher quality then that found in a Yugo. Not the same in Mac vs. PC.

What is higher quality is the OS. Mac has definitely built a nicer experience than Microsoft has. That, of course, ignores any of the multiple Linux distros out there which eliminate the cost of the OS on the PC side.

So really, what the car analogy should be is a Yugo vs. a Yugo with leather seats and a Bose stereo.

"With a Mac I am more productive, so the price difference disappears in a few months."

I've often heard this one, and I don't much get it. This said, I have used OSX, XP, Vista, and Ubuntu in the last couple of years.

How is it that you're more productive on a Mac? Do you write documents faster? Code in Ruby faster? Calculate a range of cells in a spreadsheet faster?

"More productive" has become a fanboi comment that generally lacks metrics or analysis. But since some folks say it, it becomes a mantra.

The bottom line is buy what you think is a good investment for what you'll be doing with it. The hardware is all the same now, so the extra cost is in the OS itself.

i have one word for you "apple-dick-riders"

I fear those questioning the differences in price and features of the Windows PC vs. Mac are totally lost and should not own a computer at all...everyone should know not to try to buy RAM from the apple store (or a notebook from Target - that's where you buy bedding, toilet paper, and maybe pickup an XBOX game from time to time)

there was a pretty strong case for mac changig its market strategy a week and a half ago

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2008/07/28/nows-the-time-for-apple-to-strike

but this guy didn't have any charts

This is for the "power user", obviously.
I am a hardware fan, what OS I use.. is secondary.
But I know what my hardware should run, and a intel cpu can run OSX.. if you want it...

What your "power user" would do to save money.

1. Purchase Cheap dell
2. Purchase OSX
3. Download hackintosh "patches"

Install OSX on your Dell. Spend a few hours to get it working 100% (and it does take time the first time)

Now you own a computer that runs OSX just fine for 60% of the price. I've done it.. of course.. I don't run OSX on any of my PC's, games are faster in windows.

For someone who dislikes apple and the arrogrance of their users...The MacPro is a good price too. Even if you bought it to run windows only. Try to buy that hardware in that form factor for anywhere near that price... xeon processors and all with multiple pci express slots. Good luck with that.

Apple's prices are crazy. I work for a large school district. We went to market with tender for PC and MAC computers. MAC came in twice the cost of PC. We put it right to Apple execs...you need to lower your price if you want us to stay with Apple. They came down a bit more in the end but still way above PC. Schools were left to decide what they want. Many schools opted to drop MACs in favor of more PCs for the same money. MACS just aren't worth the price difference in education.

People that compare Macs to Ferraris should shampoo my crotch.

Antonio said:
If you buy a computer for the "coolness factor" you deserve to pay extra. I suppose you pay 1500 each for the rims on your Escalade too.

Well, Antonio, that's a different debate altogether. The consumer market has always been divided into a utilitarian market and a luxury market. There are people who have the money and the desire to buy nice things, and there are people who need to be more practical and frugal. Why do you pooh-pooh the former? I have money, why shouldn't I buy luxury items? Is there something wrong with that?

And why should we have this particular debate here?

Antonio said:
Apple has so limited the range of hardware, of course they can tailor their OS to a handful of configurations. Of course, what that means is you can't get your pick of the best quality that is out there. You get to use what Apple thinks you should have. For some of you, that is great, for others, not so much. You pay to have fewer options.

The PC has become a commodity product. It no longer matters what's inside of it, as long as it runs your applications well. Not only is it a commodity product, it's also a *disposable* product, so that the notion of upgrading the hardware in a few years' time is quite antiquated.

In my younger days as a geek, I drooled over the latest CPU or memory/hard drive configuration. Today, I couldn't care less. I have several PCs at home with 2.0+ GHz dual/quad core processors, 500GB hard drives, and middling graphics. That's overkill for most people. That's overkill for me, and I'm a professional software developer!

So Apple gives you few options. Who cares? Certainly not the buying public, the consumer market. Apple understands this.

Apparently, you Windows folks don't.

Hell $700? i just picked up a stack of HP's for $500 +tax of course, with 2gig ram wifi nvidia graphics a remote control 160 gigHDD's. looking around most of the retailers in my area i see comparable notebooks as low as 398 and thats almost all of them(stores). while it wont play hard core 3d games i have been able to run quit a few games on them. and yea i dont care for vista but except for a codec problem i have yet to see these crashes some people talk about and its been about three months. why the hell would i pay over $1000 for something thats not even equal in power. you can blo till your blue in the face NO OS is worth a $500+ premium!!!! screw that ill go with linux first
and to all those people who say vista is a resource hog just turn off all the graphical BS and suddenly it runs fine. MS OS's do have tuning features ya know.............

Andrew said :

MACS just aren't worth the price difference in education.

By going the PC route, your school will pay more in the long run. The money is one thing, but time is another. Do you want to spend your time fixing your machines rather than teaching? Or are you counting on your school district to fund another full-time IT to deal with your problems? Don't count on that.

I grew up with PCs, bought my first Mac in 2000. A Powermac G4 that still works today. I purchased my first mac laptop in 2005, also a G4, and I still use it every day. Yes, there are faster machines out there now, but at least with an Apple Computer I have a choice to upgrade. I haven't been forced to buy another machine because of cheap hardware and a faulty OS.

The bottom line, I save both time and money, and that's makes using my machines that much more fun as well.

I have been a Mac user since 1988 and have owned countless hardware items. I haven't had a system crash since upgrading to OSX in 2003. I have had many applications crash which were almost always Microsoft

I had to use a PC for work for awhile a few years ago, and I snickered inside at how much it cost my boss to have me deal with the constant BS.

It's all about the engineering.

Last summer I was going to switch to Mac. Went to look at MacBooks (not Pro) and was utterly shocked that the screens (you know, our main interface with the device!) were so bad. My wife was with me and agreed that the picture quality was noticeably worse than our 2 year-old Toshiba (one of those $700 ones, no less). They're still selling the same overpriced junk and my 3 year-old Toshiba still looks better.

But that wasn't the deciding factor for me. I was still willing to payup when a better model came along. No, for me it was the iPhone. Let me say that I love my iPhone and I think it was / is the best smartphone for many people, by a long shot. But it crashes, hangs, and does all those crazy things that windows does. So I realized the Mac thing was all hype--they're no better than Microsoft.

I shouldn't have needed a lesson. I had already seen them claim for years that their proprietary architecture was better, faster and that their OS was superior...only to summarily dump both and go with a PC architecture and a unix-based OS.

Besides, once I started using Vista I really have no desire to use anything else. Yes, there was a time when I thought about wiping and putting venerable XP Pro on my new Dell, but that urge has long since passed.

Buy Apple gadgets. They're great and worth the premium as long as you're cool with iTunes. But leave your heavy computing needs with Microsoft and the PC makers.

This article is extremely bias, it neglects the main differences between apple and pc.

I purchased a mac a month ago, and have litterally left my BRAND new quad core Q6600 Hp in the Dust as it screams every time i turn it on from the exposure of viruses and ive gotten mcafee, avira, adaware for it. Absolutely next to useless in the eyes of a mac.

The os is untouchable, you have widgets, dashboard, expose, absolutely no viruses, or spyware, i dont worry at all.

my quadcore Q6600 w/ nvidia 8500GT + 200GB HD (no monitor or speakers = 1000$

Macbook 2.4 in white w/ the ipod touch AND a printer all with student discount? = 1200$

ive had 3 desktops all rigged to the best memory and harddrives for 7 yrs. MAC > all.

Usually, I don't get into fanboy arguments online. I choose to enjoy what I do, and every once in a while debate the virtues with my friends. But I seldom waste time on online message boards and such - but as a person with plenty of research experience, I'm going to dissect the author's biases.

"...on sale at the local Target. One of them, a 14-inch model, the HP DV2946NR, sold for $699.99 and packed 4GB of memory and a 320GB hard drive."

And you casually mention yet forget to include in the argument that this laptop's on SALE?
I love deals. I spend a half an hour each day on deal forums. This is a steal for a laptop, one that would be snapped up by PC users. A sale that is probably specific to that store for the next week. It won't last long. These specs are typical at $1000- $1100.
Let's compare another sale - with my educational discount, I can get the Macbook that you mentioned for $950 or so; plus the free iPod, which is on sale right now. Bringing it down to $750, or even less. Still seem like much of a difference?

Oh, and was it intentional or did you just happen to forget that this HP is a 2 Ghz dual core, while the Macbook sports a 2.4? The difference in performance is MUCH more significant than the 20% up in processor speed.

"If Vista notebooks are selling for so little and packing so much, how does this compare with Mac desktops and notebooks?"

It's Vista.
I know that argument has been used time and again, but I tried Vista as a Beta release, as an RC candidate and the full released version. A year ago, I decided it was not worth it, and that I was not going to use Vista. I'm sure it's gotten a lot of bugs fixed, but I find it hard to spend three hours backing up my hard drive (which, of course, takes forever because I run XP), and a couple more partitioning and installing Vista, only to realize that it was a waste of my time, AGAIN. That it freezes, asks for my permission to copy each file when I give the command and generally acts like a spoiled brat. Because that's really what Microsoft is - a pampered brat.

"Today I contacted Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, about computer average selling prices at retail. That HP notebook is right on mark: ASP for retail Windows notebooks is $700. Mac laptops: $1,515. Yeah, right, they're more than twice as much."

Again - a previous commenter raised the point - average prices are not to be compared, because macs are generally higher performance laptop. From your statement, one might believe that the $700 average applies to powerhouses like your sale example. It's not. The average $700 laptop probably has a 1.6, MAYBE 1.8 ghz dual core, 1 GB RAM, a 120 HDD, a DVD burner. That's it. No wireless N, bluetooth, no camera, or any number of other perks. Really not fair - to Windows that is, because that laptop will start whining when it gets the slightest bit of pressure.

"But there's more: The ASP for Mac desktops is more than $1,000 greater than for Windows PCs, and Mac desktop ASPs were higher in June than they were two years ago."
As another poster brought up - comparing prices at the end of a product cycle, RIGHT before a product refresh and price cut, is ridiculous. Which it is unadvisable to buy a mac right this moment, to be sure, rather than waiting 5 weeks.

"But that "more" also means Windows Vista, which won't satisfy some shoppers."

Some?
Sorry, I couldn't resist.

"That situation has dramatically changed in the last six months, particularly the last three months."

Again, the whole price and product cycle thing.

"...prices must go down and configurations bulk up."

So what you're saying is... Apple needs to update their product line to improve their market share. That they can't sell the same laptops for more than two years if they want to stay competitive.

No shit, Sherlock. I could have told you that.

I really can't rebut the desktop argument, because simply, I don't know enough about either Mac or PC desktops. I'm not going to presume to do that.

***

I've used every version of windows except for the server versions since 3.1. It's been - what, 12 years?
Next month, I'm planning on buying a MacBook. Here's why.
1. Parallels. I enjoy options. Everything I can do on XP, I can do on OSX and XP put together. Not the other way around.
2. PC laptop makers build crap. I bought my Dell Inspiron 6000 2.5 years ago. The keyboard has been replaced twice, the screen sags forward on its hinged and won't stay still, the system buzzes white noise for 5 minutes whenever I boot or come out of standby, and there are several dead pixels. Oh, and whenever I pop in a DVD, the system freezes. I have 2 gigs of ram in there, and while the processor is not that powerful, it's by no means truly archaic (single core 2 ghz). The fully functional life of a PC desktop is no more than 24 months, if you're LUCKY. Friends who have macs as old as that are only looking for a laptop if they WANT one, not because they NEED it.
3. I've reinstalled my OS 5-7 times.
4. The need to defrag/reinstall my OS every few months to get it running smoothly again.
5. BATTERY LIFE. By far the most important factor. A new lappy will probably produce 2, maybe 2.5 hours. A couple of years old, expect 1. I'm a college student, and I can't run out of juice halfway through a lecture.
6. Software updates. I will have the luxury of updating my laptop without having to buy new hardware to support it - as might have been the case with Vista, for example.

I'm sorry, I really have to get back to work. I'm sure I could have lengthened the list to 10 or 12, but I don't have the time. Perhaps some other time.

Altogether: I think Macs DO have a premium price, probably about 5-10% above exactly built PCs. However, I think that there is a very good justification; apart from aesthetics, the software perks and widened range of options are worth it. Of course, right this moment I think the premium is more along the lines of 20-30%, but that is strictly due to the product cycle. When the new Macs are out next month, run an analysis comparing an exactly specced out PC, taking into account factors like battery and portability, and you will find the prices - the MSRP, mind you - are quite competitive, maybe more so on the side of Apple.

This is why you find that market share expanding, due to users like myself. I'll probably still use Windows now and then, but since I've never had a problem porting over, it'll be when I have to.

There used to be a time when I used to consider that PC users only switched because they were computer illiterate and found Macs easier to use; while they still are easier to use, I can assure you from personal experience that that precise scenario is no longer the only case, that more and more discerning tech users are switching because they found Apple to be better value for money and a better user experience overall.

Why would Apple need to lower prices on their computers? I don't think there would be a large enough increase in buyers even if they did lower the cost by about 20%. They're doing fine as it is. Not that I don't want a price drop...i'd be all over it.

As for Windows, you'd only have to worry about viruses/spyware/etc if you go to crack/porn sites, or if you click on obviously fishy links in emails. It's not the operating system...it's how you use it.

For the record, I use Windows XP, Ubuntu, and Mac OSX computers at home.

The real tech minded people choose windows because they are cheaper AND better! They know that all the bad hype about Vista is unfounded (Vista really does work well people) and that under the hood, Apples and Windows are basically the same now. The only "user experience" that Apple users get that Windows users don't is sticker shock.

If Vista is so great, how come people are duking it out to be able to buy Microsoft's last generation OS (XP)?

The initial purchase price is only one consideration. How much time do you spend actually trying to get the computer work? How often do you have to repair it?

The PC market has always been a race to the bottom in regard to pricing. It should come as no surprise that there is stratification in the market just as there is in the auto market. Both a Porsche and a Hyundai get you from point A to point B in the same amount of time. Why is Porsche in business if people have to pay such a large premium for their products?

I really don't think looking at hardware specs is a valid measure of macs. My huge Dell PC has hardware specs that blow my mac mini clean out of the water. Yet my mac mini is significantly faster than my Dell. Go figure. The problem with the PC's is that they are infected with a virus called Windows. The latest version of the Windows virus (Vista) makes your computer run even more slowly with even more annoying "features" hence the need for PCs to have ever faster and beefier hardware to deliver the same level of performance you'd get from Windows 3.1 on a 286 several years ago. I find it amusing that you can run Windows (via Parallels) on a mac mini with better performance than you can run it on a big f'off Dell. For a long, long time I was a Windows fanboi, it was only when I was pretty much forced by colleagues to try a mac that I actually realised why people rave over them. I'm not saying macs are perfect, but compared to Windows they are vastly more pleasant and productive to use.

A "bargain PC" ceases to be a bargain once you get it home and try to use it. Get a Mac. Preserve your sanity. Live your life.

I was a loyal Windows user for 20 years and switched to a MACbook Pro in October. I would gladly pay double for another MAC and will never purchase another Windows-based computer.

The Leopard operating system is fast and stable unlike my husband's Vista laptop we purchased in June.

About half the people buying Macs are interested in the advanced features, reliability and great software integration right out of the box.

I've recommended Macs to a half dozen people who have bought them in the last year, and all of them said they wished they had switched sooner.

I could use all sorts of examples, including a friend who's HP desktop was owned by a botnet from hell but if you use both everyday, like I do, you KNOW why I do NOT let my Dell on the Internet, and use it as a single purpose machine.

I've been a Mac user and a PC user since 1988...quite simply Mac's are worth the extra because they just don't crash or break. Worry-free is the word I'm looking for. Mac's just keep working like an old HP LaserJet3 printer or a Kirby vacuum cleaner. (For those that don't know, Kirby vacuum cleaners cost about $2000 but seldom need to be repaired!) I get work done on my Mac instead of worrying about the latest patch or "this and that thing" I need to keep my Windows machine functioning. My Windows experience is starting to remind me of the early days of Linux when you were constantly tweaking your machine instead fo getting any work done. And now, just like then, if you don't keep up with all the tweaking you have to do for Windows, you run the risk of your computer being totally unusable...rebuild anyone? A computer is a tool to do work...if it's always in the shop for repair, why use it?

Your comparison at the low end fails to point out that the iMac also has some other features not listed for the Inspiron 518:
The iMac has bluetooth, 802.11 g, a double layer DVD burner and a Web cam. It also has lower energy consumption and OS X instead of Vista. That last bit is important because the maintenance cost in time or outsourcing is significantly higher for the Vista machine. OS X is easier to administer, and easier to add other devices and hardware than Vista. Additionally, you can always ad VMware ($79) or Parallels ($120) to the iMac and run Windows simultaneously with OS X if there is an application or requirement for software that doesn't exist on the Mac. You can also run Unix programs and Linux along side OS X.

There is a hidden cost with a Windows PC that no one likes to talk about or admit. When the average non-technical consumer buys a Windows PC they are not equipped to fix it. When the hard drive gets gummed up with viruses and bloatware after a few months of use what do they do? Well, they take it to Best Buy or some other mainstream store that does not have qualified technicians to solve the real problem. They tell them they have to replace the hard drive and wipe their system clean and start over. And of course the customer is out several hundred dollars in the process. Not to mention the lost data because they never backed up anything.

My Power Mac G5 has been running for 5 years without a virus, without having to re-install the OS. It has plenty of power, no need to upgrade it just to run the current wave of Microsoft CPU hogging applications. The average Windows PC user has since gone through two or more computers in that time because they simply just threw the damn thing away rather than deal with getting the hard drive clean.

I'm a graphic designer, a loyal Mac user from the get-go back in '85. But it's getting ridiculous. Macs used to be plug and play, and when my friends asked the eternal question "Mac or PC", I always said Mac for low TOC. No more. Both platforms do your basic word processing, filing, surfing, gaming, music, movies etc. for the average user. But the TOC for Macs has just exploded for us professionals. I just finished a month-long (!) process of buying a Mac Pro Tower, and getting fonts to behave, printing to pdf and printer, accepting files from clients, and a host of other work-flow problems (a given ever since OS X came in), my checkbook is $7000 lighter, thanks to those integration problems needing a professional consultant. IMHO Apple has forgotten the industry that brung 'em to the dance. The graphics industry is ripe for a workstation that just works - Atari anyone? I own a number of both PCs and Macs, and I yearn for the days of System 7, but right now I enjoy my Vista machine as much as my Mac.

Let's all face the truth, hardware-wise there is little difference except for standard Bluetooth and perhaps a camera between MAC and PC laptops. That said, in equivalently built hardware (read as quality of construction) the price difference is for an OS. Mac OS doesn't run as many different titles as Win OS's. Mac OS is largely idiot proof when compared to Win OS's. MAC's don't have the number of malware issues (likely because the MAC market is so small compared to PC that it's not worth hacking to most hackers)than PC.

Thus, MAC has a greater stability for those who have neither the ability nor the desire to take the time or make the effort to compute safely and without playing with settings in the OS they don't understand.

I have both MAC and Win machines and use the Win machines almost exclusively because of the power I was able to afford to build into them (read memory, graphics ability, and cpu cycles) to work on the various engineering projects I consult on. The MAC's only get fired up in the rare occasions when a client has an application using MAC, or I receive a file that needs to be run on MAC.

It's not a bias, nor a zealot-like worship of a platform; it is simply the same good business sense that has made the PC the number one computing platform in industry world-wide.

Mel S. Hutson :
This article is also deficient because it does not analyze the effect of resale. You can buy a iMac for $1400 and sell it for $700 three years later. Buy a PC for $700 and it's worth maybe $200 three years later.
---------------------
I wonder what Mr. Hutson's point was. Was it that if you buy an iMac you can lose $700 versus $500 for a Windows PC?

Design matters. Always did, always will.